[Hipsec-rg] draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-01.txt review

[stiemerling at netlab.nec.de (Martin Stiemerling)]

Hi Karen,

Many thanks for reviewing the draft! More inline.

Am 24.04.2006 um 20:43 schrieb Karen R. Sollins:

> In general I find draft-irtf-hiprg-nat-01.txt to be ready to  
> publish with a few additional and reiterated small points or nits.   
> I think it does a nice job of identifying and considering the  
> issues, and should be valuable.
>
> First, I also found that it didn't quite stand on its own because  
> it uses so many acronyms that are not even spelled out.  Perhaps at  
> the first usage of each acronym, it should be written out fully,  
> with the acronym in parentheses (to hint to the reader that  
> henceforth the acronym will be used).

I have added to all non-obvious acronyms a full text explanation.

>
> In addition to the nits reported by others, here is my further list:
>
> *  p. 4, 2nd line: "refer to" should be "reference"

Fixed.


>
> * p. 4, 4th line: "It also does not..." - eliminate "also" to read  
> "It does not".. (since this is the first negative about what the  
> doc does NOT do).

Fixed.

>
> * p. 5, first line - last word is missing.  The sentence ends it  
> "before", but doesn't tell me before what - perhaps what is meant  
> is "before transmission"?

Removed the "before", was a left over.

>
> * p. 5, Sect. 2.2, last sentence, 2nd paragraph: The sentence  
> reads, "They may be addressed in the BEHAVE working group or in  
> [RFC3489]." This suggests a future action, but one can't plan to do  
> something in the future within an already existing RFC, so the  
> sentence needs to say something slightly different about what might  
> happen and what has already happened.

By the current state in the BEHAVE working group the sentence reads:
They are addressed in the BEHAVE working group or in [RFC3489].

Because the BEHAVE working group is working on NAT implementation  
issues.

>
> * Finally, is there an issue with the fact that several of the key  
> references (2 normative and 1 informative) are currently only  
> Internet Drafts?

Yes, there is an issue which cannot be solved by now. All the  
references that are Internet drafts are really needed. However, one  
of  them is already in the RFC editor queue (draft-ietf-hip- 
arch-03.txt) and the others are expected to enter the RFC editor  
queue soon.

Thanks,

   Martin